The Tribunal held that cash received at the time of executing a registered sale deed does not fall within the definition of “specified sum” under Section 269SS. Since the provision primarily targets advances in property transactions, penalty under Section 271D was unsustainable.
The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory option under Rule 11UA(2) lies exclusively with the assessee. Replacing DCF with NAV without demonstrating fatal flaws in valuation violates the legal framework.
ITAT Hyderabad held that limitation for issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act would be only 3 years from the end of the assessment year since material suggesting escapement is less than Rs. 50 Lakhs. Hence, notice issued u/s. 148 is beyond period of limitation of three years hence quashed.
The issue centred on whether chilling is merely cooling or a technical process. The Tribunal held that chilling involves scientific tests and preservation steps, constituting processing under the Act and justifying the deduction.
The assessee relied on deemed payment after transferring employee dues to another entity. The Tribunal ruled that section 43B recognises only real payment and set aside the relief granted by the appellate authority.
The Assessing Officer treated all cash deposits as unexplained income under Section 115BBE. The Tribunal held that deposits prima facie represented IOC sales and required factual verification before any addition.
The dispute concerned whether transfer through a release deed amounted to a taxable sale and justified loss claims. The Tribunal remanded the matter, directing verification of books to examine the genuineness of the claimed loss.
The case examined whether a General Power of Attorney could be treated as a Joint Development Agreement for taxing capital gains. The Tribunal held that a GPA does not amount to a transfer, leading to deletion of the addition.
The decision clarifies that voluntary admission and taxation of income post-search does not ipso facto warrant penalty. Absence of contumacious conduct weighed against the Revenue.
ITAT Hyderabad held that issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, post introduction of ‘Faceless Jurisdiction of Income tax Authorities Scheme, 2022, is bad and illegal in law. Accordingly, order passed thereon is quashed and set aside.
